Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

97 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. The reason for the peremptory challenge is not related to the facts of the case; 2. there was a lack of questioning to the challenged juror or a lack of meaningful questions; 3. disparate treatment in that persons with the same or similar characteristics were not struck; 4. disparate examination in that a challenged juror was questioned so as to evoke a certam response whereas other panel members were not asked the same question; and 5. an explanation based on a group bias where the group trait is not shown to apply specifically to the challenged juror.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bryant v. State · Mayr v. Lott

2. “(1) Did the appellant at the Batson hearing introduce sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the State has engaged in purposeful racial discrimination by the use of peremptory challenges?; (2) if so, has the prosecution come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors?; and (3) if the prosecution has sustained [its] burden of production, as specified, has the appellant continued to sustain his burden of persuasion in establishing purposeful racial discrimination by the State’s use of peremptory challenges, thus rebutting any race neutral explanation given at the Batson hearing.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hernandez v. State · Musick v. State

3. “' • Mr. Nelson did not believe in the death penalty in any circumstance, could not impose a sentence that resulted in death, became agitated during questioning, and changed his answers depending on who was questioning him. • Ms. Henley preferred a sentence of life imprisonment to death, had difficulty understanding and answering questions, often made no sense, exhibited a lack of concern for the legal process, and expressed no problem with people fighting police officers. • Ms. Keller possibly had weak ties to the community, had physical difficulties and parental responsibilities that would make it difficult to serve, initially had said that she had never thought about the death penalty but later expressed long-standing concerns about it, said that she could not vote for death, said she would panic if called as a juror, and gave inconsistent answers on cross-examination. • Ms. Jones vacillated on whether she could answer the special issues, had parental responsibilities that would make it difficult for her to focus on a • capital murder case, was confused with questions, and gave inconsistent answers. • Mr. Gibson said that he had never thought about the death penalty but later showed a predisposition against capital punishment, said that he’ could not answer the special issues, would have difficulty providing for his family during jury service, and vacillated in his opinion of the death penalty. • Ms. Roque had parental responsibilities that would make jury service difficult”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Davis